You might want to re-read my post a little more carefully..:) The idea was that you'd embed the absurdly long URL in an anchor tag (in the HREF attribute), where URLs should be anyway... and wrap that anchor around a truncated form of the original, overlong string.
Basically, it would take long URLs and turn them into short links, without you having to go to the trouble of doing it yourself (which is handy, because nobody expects to have spaces randomly inserted in their text).
Re:only for 911??
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
Yep. I'd use it to find my pants.
Re:Ads???
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Piss on `em! There are like, thousands of wireless companies.
No, seriously... I realize there are at least two (and possibly as many as four) other providers that cover more than ten square miles with something resembling recent technology.
Good thing The Market has provided us with all these choices, eh?
So, my take on it is that if you're already screwing with someone's input, you might as well do it right.
It's not "a fuckload of AI", it's just a bloody match operation-- much like the one that's already being done to provide us with irritating spaces in the middle of URLs he typed without them.
And it's not as if URLs are ambiguously constructed, or as if it's particularly hard to determine what someone was trying to say when they typed one. It's a freaking URL. It wants to be an anchor.
Perhaps a better solution would be a regex match on URLs that converted them to anchors and truncated, if necessary, the CDATA (but not the HREF attribute).
Just a suggestion, as I've noticed a lot of broken URLs in slashdot posts recently, and it does get annoying.
Does anyone else thinks this sounds like office workers saying "I won't switch to Linux because I already know how to do my job in a Microsoft Office environment and while there may be some benefits to Linux or any Unix for that matter, I just don't want to learn something new?"
No. The difference being that I have checked it out, have used it exclusively on one machine for a while, and have come to the conclusion (which, as you'll see if you have the time to throw away reading all of my posts, is by no means set in stone) that I'm happier with what I've currently got. It's not like I looked at the water and assumed it would be cold. I jumped in, swam around, and decided I liked it better over in the hot tub.
My advice: You should always check out the competition. What's the worst thing that could happen? You might learn something?
Erm... I did. I'm sorry it wasn't stated in that post (it didn't come up until later), but I continue to "check out" OS X, and to learn about it and to learn from it.
I know it's fun to play Mock the Ignorant Linux Bigot, but you've got the wrong guy this time.
um, no it's not. it's an artificial *organization*.
The theory was the same name could exist on separate TLDs, owned by separate people, doing different things.
apple.net wasn't supposed to be apple.com wasn't supposed to be apple.org. So instead of.apple, you'd have at least three domain hierarchies under.apple.TLD.
That's not a limitation, that's compartmentalizing and therefore broadening the namespace.
Your summaries seem to be more or less accurate. (I say "more or less" because I'm not sure how smoothly all of the above work, on either side.)
But keep in mind that I, for one, simply prefer Linux. More specifically, I prefer the distribution of Linux that I run. OS X, at what I think of with varying degrees of accuracy as the "OS level", just isn't the same and I'm not as comfortable with it. The filesystem layout, the use of Netinfo, the general NeXTiness, the BSDness... they're very different from my unix-like OS of choice. I could hack and graft to increase the similarity, but why?
The cool part is that while they're "very different" operating systems, they're both close enough to Unix (or *are* Unix) that I can transition from one to the other if I so choose at some point. I can share a lot of knowledge, information, ideas, and-- when it comes down to it-- software with friends of mine who run OS X. That bit really rocks.
So don't get me wrong... Part of me really finds OS X intriguing, and wants to hack and graft and meddle in its affairs. I read tons of websites and articles about OS X, I learn from my friends who use it, and I can always boot it up and play. But for daily use, my Linux distribution wins. (And there's plenty of hacking still to be done there.)
I'm more comfortable in my Linux distribution of choice than I am in OS X. I know where everything is, I have absurd amounts of software already installed (including a toolchain I didn't have to register online to obtain), and I have little need for MacOS apps. I also prefer KDE over Aqua; Though I recognize Aqua has some bells and whistles that KDE and XFree86 lack, KDE and XFree86 have far more of the bells and whistles that I use and appreciate. I'm pretty much just happier with the software on the Linux side.
As for Mac-On-Linux, I could see using it for the occasional MacOS app... sometimes such functionality is handy. And really, if it works, why not have it around?
I've seen a lot of posts on this thread asking what "the niche" is for MOL, questioning whether Linux has any value in the Mac "market" because OS X is available, etc. My only reply, really, is that maybe those posters should stop thinking like Official Linux Salesmen and Market Strategists... if it's not your thing, fine, but trying to determine the "market" for everything (especially something that's so obviously built and supported by its "market"), as if you own a piece, is silly.
I am not thinking negitively. I am just questioning the feasibility of this project
It's better than feasible... it's already working.
Funny thing is, I'm glad not everyone is developing on x86... if the "community resources" were all focused on making shiny new stuff for x86 servers, I wouldn't be able to run Linux on my Macs.
It just irritated me, really - I've never really understood what makes a word "bad" or "shameful" - I was punished for using certain words as a child, so I learned not to use them - but I never really did learn why I was not to use them.
Certain words have to be "bad" or "shameful" so that they have impact. Sometimes you need such words to adequately convey your thoughts or emotions, and it would suck if they weren't there at your disposal.
I think the reason "fuck" and "shit" fall into that category, as opposed to "puppy" and "cornbread" is pretty obvious...;)
Well, not to poke a hole in your conspiracy theory or anything, but I think it's far more likely that they just replaced a handful of expletives with something less "offensive". (How anyone could be offended by someone blurting out "fuck" in response to five thousand people being killed before their eyes, I don't know...)
I have to say, too, that I didn't notice any such defucking on the CNN stream or radio stations I was listening to at the time.
But if what you say is true, it's certainly not a good thing. If I go back to a tape archive in twenty years, I'm not going to be interested in how people might have reacted if this was a Disney movie...
Who said this was their biggest worry? Last I checked, Apple had not committed its full resources and energy to the problem of some guy distributing some knock-off themes.
It hardly seems fair to accuse Apple of blowing this out of proportion when you yourself have such a poor understanding of the scope of the matter.
The IBM Public License is interesting in its source code distribution policy. It states that source code must be distributed in a format typically used for storing program code. In other words, unlike some Open Source licenses, the IBM license prevents you from distributing the source carved into a grain of rice, or coded into the DNA of an engineered bacterium.
This is also true of the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding
machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,...
At some point, of course, it was decided that distributing source in a 650MB CD-ROM image was OK under these terms (!?), but that's another argument for another day.;)
Incidentally, though, there's no reason that the "reference" system has to be entirely manual. A bank could just number its customers, and a customer could provide a future bank with (A) the name of the previous bank and (B) their customer ID at that bank. Second Bank connects to First Bank's database, feeds it A and B. First Bank contacts you with the name of Second Bank and asks for release authorization. You say 'go', First Bank tells Second Bank what they want to know, and it's all good. Not quite as snappy as an SSN lookup, but not far off and considerably more secure.
I'd imagine that if the banks didn't have credit-tracking companies to do all this for them (and without your control), they'd implement a very similar system.
The key points here are that you have a separate unique ID at every institution, and that no information is exchanged without your consent, and in theory no information can be exchanged without your first providing the means (prior lender and customer ID there).
The problem, of course, is that banks won't want to do this. They'd rather know about all the banks you've previously dealt with, not just the ones you feel comfortable telling them about. That's understandable, it's safer for them that way... but frankly, I don't care.
So, look at it this way... just like I already have GTK on my system, I already have a JDK/JRE.
I download Limewire (3.44MB vs 157k is a negligible difference these days) and unzip the distribution. Then I run a shell script that sets up the environment and runs the app where it sits. It takes a little time to fire up the JVM, but then it's just fine as far as speed goes.
With a GTK client, I have to compile and install it, then I get to run it.
I don't really see much advantage in either app over the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it would take long URLs and turn them into short links, without you having to go to the trouble of doing it yourself (which is handy, because nobody expects to have spaces randomly inserted in their text).
Yep. I'd use it to find my pants.
thousands, five, what's the difference?
No, seriously... I realize there are at least two (and possibly as many as four) other providers that cover more than ten square miles with something resembling recent technology.
Good thing The Market has provided us with all these choices, eh?
It's not "a fuckload of AI", it's just a bloody match operation-- much like the one that's already being done to provide us with irritating spaces in the middle of URLs he typed without them.
And it's not as if URLs are ambiguously constructed, or as if it's particularly hard to determine what someone was trying to say when they typed one. It's a freaking URL. It wants to be an anchor.
Perhaps a better solution would be a regex match on URLs that converted them to anchors and truncated, if necessary, the CDATA (but not the HREF attribute).
Just a suggestion, as I've noticed a lot of broken URLs in slashdot posts recently, and it does get annoying.
No. The difference being that I have checked it out, have used it exclusively on one machine for a while, and have come to the conclusion (which, as you'll see if you have the time to throw away reading all of my posts, is by no means set in stone) that I'm happier with what I've currently got. It's not like I looked at the water and assumed it would be cold. I jumped in, swam around, and decided I liked it better over in the hot tub.
My advice: You should always check out the competition. What's the worst thing that could happen? You might learn something?
Erm... I did. I'm sorry it wasn't stated in that post (it didn't come up until later), but I continue to "check out" OS X, and to learn about it and to learn from it.
I know it's fun to play Mock the Ignorant Linux Bigot, but you've got the wrong guy this time.
The theory was the same name could exist on separate TLDs, owned by separate people, doing different things.
apple.net wasn't supposed to be apple.com wasn't supposed to be apple.org. So instead of .apple, you'd have at least three domain hierarchies under .apple.TLD.
That's not a limitation, that's compartmentalizing and therefore broadening the namespace.
But keep in mind that I, for one, simply prefer Linux. More specifically, I prefer the distribution of Linux that I run. OS X, at what I think of with varying degrees of accuracy as the "OS level", just isn't the same and I'm not as comfortable with it. The filesystem layout, the use of Netinfo, the general NeXTiness, the BSDness... they're very different from my unix-like OS of choice. I could hack and graft to increase the similarity, but why?
The cool part is that while they're "very different" operating systems, they're both close enough to Unix (or *are* Unix) that I can transition from one to the other if I so choose at some point. I can share a lot of knowledge, information, ideas, and-- when it comes down to it-- software with friends of mine who run OS X. That bit really rocks.
So don't get me wrong... Part of me really finds OS X intriguing, and wants to hack and graft and meddle in its affairs. I read tons of websites and articles about OS X, I learn from my friends who use it, and I can always boot it up and play. But for daily use, my Linux distribution wins. (And there's plenty of hacking still to be done there.)
All things considered, I'll still stick with Linux (go figure) for the other reasons I outlined (and some I didn't, for fear of a flame war).
It might be interesting to do that just to see how well it works out, though... thanks. :)
I'm more comfortable in my Linux distribution of choice than I am in OS X. I know where everything is, I have absurd amounts of software already installed (including a toolchain I didn't have to register online to obtain), and I have little need for MacOS apps. I also prefer KDE over Aqua; Though I recognize Aqua has some bells and whistles that KDE and XFree86 lack, KDE and XFree86 have far more of the bells and whistles that I use and appreciate. I'm pretty much just happier with the software on the Linux side.
As for Mac-On-Linux, I could see using it for the occasional MacOS app... sometimes such functionality is handy. And really, if it works, why not have it around?
I've seen a lot of posts on this thread asking what "the niche" is for MOL, questioning whether Linux has any value in the Mac "market" because OS X is available, etc. My only reply, really, is that maybe those posters should stop thinking like Official Linux Salesmen and Market Strategists... if it's not your thing, fine, but trying to determine the "market" for everything (especially something that's so obviously built and supported by its "market"), as if you own a piece, is silly.
It's better than feasible... it's already working.
Funny thing is, I'm glad not everyone is developing on x86... if the "community resources" were all focused on making shiny new stuff for x86 servers, I wouldn't be able to run Linux on my Macs.
Certain words have to be "bad" or "shameful" so that they have impact. Sometimes you need such words to adequately convey your thoughts or emotions, and it would suck if they weren't there at your disposal.
I think the reason "fuck" and "shit" fall into that category, as opposed to "puppy" and "cornbread" is pretty obvious... ;)
I have to say, too, that I didn't notice any such defucking on the CNN stream or radio stations I was listening to at the time.
But if what you say is true, it's certainly not a good thing. If I go back to a tape archive in twenty years, I'm not going to be interested in how people might have reacted if this was a Disney movie...
I didn't say MENSA members had an accurate self-perception/ ;)
It hardly seems fair to accuse Apple of blowing this out of proportion when you yourself have such a poor understanding of the scope of the matter.
Translation:
"...however, I am a card-carrying tool..."
Christ, I hate MENSA. There's nothing quite like a Smarter Than Everybody Else Club.
Nobody's been threatened by MS Lawyer(tm) for making a Windows-like GUI theme.
You're comparing Apples and... erm... Oranges?
What would be interesting is teleporting someone as a means of finding out.
This is also true of the GPL:
At some point, of course, it was decided that distributing source in a 650MB CD-ROM image was OK under these terms (!?), but that's another argument for another day. ;)
I could be completely insane, but "pleonasm" would seem to be self-descriptive...
Okay, I'm beginning to ramble but the bottom line is that tip-sets are cool and probably more efficient and ergonomic than keyboards and mice.
... except that you'd spend all day with your hands held out in the air in front of you.
Try that for an hour, tell us how it goes.
Incidentally, though, there's no reason that the "reference" system has to be entirely manual. A bank could just number its customers, and a customer could provide a future bank with (A) the name of the previous bank and (B) their customer ID at that bank. Second Bank connects to First Bank's database, feeds it A and B. First Bank contacts you with the name of Second Bank and asks for release authorization. You say 'go', First Bank tells Second Bank what they want to know, and it's all good. Not quite as snappy as an SSN lookup, but not far off and considerably more secure.
I'd imagine that if the banks didn't have credit-tracking companies to do all this for them (and without your control), they'd implement a very similar system.
The key points here are that you have a separate unique ID at every institution, and that no information is exchanged without your consent, and in theory no information can be exchanged without your first providing the means (prior lender and customer ID there).
The problem, of course, is that banks won't want to do this. They'd rather know about all the banks you've previously dealt with, not just the ones you feel comfortable telling them about. That's understandable, it's safer for them that way... but frankly, I don't care.
Ain't diversity grand? :)
I download Limewire (3.44MB vs 157k is a negligible difference these days) and unzip the distribution. Then I run a shell script that sets up the environment and runs the app where it sits. It takes a little time to fire up the JVM, but then it's just fine as far as speed goes.
With a GTK client, I have to compile and install it, then I get to run it.
I don't really see much advantage in either app over the other.